retooling the planet? – climate chaos in the geoengineering age

7/31/2019 Retooling the Planet? Climate Chaos in the Geoengineering Age

1/44

Report

Retooling the Planet?

Climate Chaos in the Geoengineering Age

A report prepared by ETC Group


2/44

Retooling the planet

Author: Diana Bronson, Pat Mooney, Kathy Jo Wetter, with special thanks

to Jim Thomas, Silvia Ribeiro, Elenita Dao and Niclas Hllstrm

Project Manager: Niclas Hllstrm

Layout: Anki Bergstrm, Naturskyddsreningen

Photo: www.sxc.hu

Print: tta.45, Stockholm

Order No: 9055

ISBN: 978-91-558-0172-4

Produced with economic support rom Sida. Sida has not participated in

the production o the publication and has not evaluated the acts or opini-

ons that are expressed.

This report was prepared by members o the ETC Group (www.etcgroup.

org) or the Swedish Society or Nature Conservation. The irst edition o

this report was slightly modiied in March 2010.


3/44


Prc

Irduc

Bx : W s Gr?

Part I

cy, UNFCCC d Gr

Bx : T Squky C Dvm Mcsm

Hw W G Hr: T Msrm Gr

Md Bz: Icrs Pubcs W Pcymkrs s Wrs

T Lmbr Muvr: Oc Cm C Dr, Nw Gr Dv

cy, UNFCCC d Arcuur

Part II

Gr: T cs

Bx : Pr Prc Is Gr Fsb?

Sr Rd Mm (SRM)

b : Gr cs

Crb Dxd Rmv d Squsr Wr Mdc

Bx : Gr A Br cc Hsry

Cs Sudy : Oc Frz

Bx : Oc Frz T Pks Sry

Cs Sudy : Arc Vcs Sus Srsr:

Cs Sudy : Cud W Abd Ecm Bw Srsr

Gr d Icu Prry Cms

b : A Sm Gr Ps

BOX : Bs Rss Sy N Gr

Part III

Rcs d Rcmmds: W Nx r Gr?

cy, Prcu d UNFCCC

Rsrc d Dvm: S R Wrd Exrm

Assssm Nw cs

Gvrc d Ru

Bx : A Ir Cv r Evu Nw cs (ICEN)

T R Cv Scy

Table o Contents


4/44


Preace

With this report on risky technologies and geoengineering,

the Swedish Society or Nature Conservation hopes to raise

awareness and stimulate debate on an issue o major sig-

cc w v y csdrd.

As cm crss bcm vr mr r, s w

science indicates an even more serious situation, and as

international climate negotiations prove disappointingly

sw d umbus, rc quck, c-x

solutions seems to be gaining ground. Geoengineering the

large-scale intentional modication o oceans, atmosphere

d d cur cs cm c s vr

y w yrs rm rm scc-c

w b dscussd by sbsd scss, cy-mk-

ers and media. Still, most people, even those working on

cm c, r ry uwr w s .

Tis is also true or the Swedish Society or NatureConservation. Geoengineering is an issue that has not been

at the centre o our work so ar. We do, however, realise that

s r qucky d w d udr-

stand more, ormulate positions and act, and do this sooner

rr r.

us udrsd scc, c d cm-

mrc cx rud r, w v skd

EC Group, the civil society organisation that has probably

ollowed the issue most intensively and over the longest

rd m, rvd rr sd s

d, d cs ursvs s w s y r r-

s r su wrk cm c. T

analysis and recommendations presented in the report thus

rc vws urs.

Ts rr s bud sk us . Fr s uwr

o geoengineering it is an eye-opener. It also exposes the

powers in play, the UN climate change negotiations context

d rsks vvd.

For an environmental organisation such as SSNC, issues

o risk and precaution has alway been at the core o our

work. So many environmental problems are due to a neglect

rcu. Isd ssss w cs cr-

uy br cmmrcs d srd m wdy,

b crrs d vrms r w

leap beore they look with hard and painul consequenc-

s bck yrs r.

In this respect it is quite astounding that risk and tech-

nology assessment in general have so ar not become strong,

integral components in the negotiations around technologyunder the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

We hope this report can help change this and also help mo-

bilise action among both civil society organisations and

vrms sbs cv cy ssssm

rmwrks. W s rr w smu mr

organisat ions to get actively involved in monitoring geoen-

r s suc. I , wrd rus srus rsk

choosing solutions that turn out to be new global prob-

ms.

Sv Axss, Scrry-Gr, SSNC


5/44


Te proo o principle that cumulative, local interventions

csysms c br bu ry-v cs s b-

yd dsu. Ts wy w v um-ducd cm

change. However, another notion is quickly gaining ground:

w c us r ursuy rv

crrc u rm wv d ur cm.

Gr s , r-sc rv-

Ers cs, ss d/r msr, s-

cially with the aim o combatting climate change.

Gr c rr wd r scms, -

cud: bs su rcs srsr

rc sus rys; dum r rcs cs

to nurture CO2 -absorbing plankton; ring silver iodide

cuds rduc r; cy-r crs

s r c br rc su.

Uvrsy Cry yscs d r d-vocate, David Keith, describes geoengineering as an expe-

dient solution that uses additional technology to counteract

uwd cs wu m r r cus.1 I

r wrds, r uss w cs ry

rcy rbms crd by us d c-

s, cssc c-x.

Amidst growing public unease and increasing concentra-

tions o carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, Organisation or

Ecmc C-r d Dvm (OECD) cu-

rs r rssur b bu Ty r

adopt socially-responsible policies to dramatically cut ossil

u us d csum, r, y c r r-

tive a silver bullet in the orm o an array o techno-

xs w w m m sus qu d

dd csqucs. N surrs, svr bu -

tion most clearly embodied in the orm o geoengineering

s mmum. As surrs: ss

b Nr, wc r rssb r ms s-

rc rus s (GHG) msss d v r d-

nied climate change or prevaricated or decades, are the ones

wrm ms qucky r . Ad

they wil l have de acto control over its deployment. Only the

worlds richest countries can really muster the hardware and

swr cssry m rrr cm d

rs rms. Equy usurrs s c

sm crs, mjr rv scr yrs -

r w ky b sm ry, cmc, rsry

and agribusiness companies that bear a large responsibility

or creating our current climate predicament in eect, the

sm ks w rd us s mss rs

c.

Cs r s c rcu.

Ev s w wud k s r-sc vsm

the eld are quick to acknowledge that we do not know

enough about the Earths systems to risk intentional geoen-gineering, or even to risk real-world geoengineering ex-

periments. We do not know i geoengineering is going to be

inexpensive, as proponents insist especially i / when geo-

engineering doesnt work, orestalls constructive alterna-

tives, or causes adverse eects. We do not know how to recal l

a planetary-scale technology once it has been released.

echniques that alter the composition o the stratosphere or

cmsry cs r ky v udd

csqucs s w s uqu mcs rud wrd

(sometimes reerred to euphemestically as spatial

heterogeneity).2 As much as the Industrial Revolutions

unintended geoengineering experiment has dispropor-

y rmd v rc d subrc

areas o the world, purposeul geoengineering experiments

r b d sm.

Te governments that are quietly contemplating unding

geoengineering experimentation are the ones that have

d y u v mm uds r m r

adaptation action on climate change. Indeed in some

Introduction

1. In a book to be published December 2009 by Island Press, Climate Change Science and Policy, Steven Schneider, Mike Mastrandrea, Armin Rosencranz, editors. The quotation is available in an article online:

www.ucalgary.ca/~keith/papers/89.Keith.EngineeringThePlanet.p.pd (accessed 14 October 2009).

2. UK Royal Society, Geoengineering the climate: science, governance and uncertainty, 1 September 2009, p. 62; available on the Internet: htt p://royalsociety.org/document.asp?tip=0&id=8729


6/44


qurrs MAG rc (M, Ad d

Geoengineering) are already being proposed or discussions

cm c.3 Ts vrms w ry dvr

cm c ud wy rm cm c m-

tion and adaptation toward geoengineering i g iven the op-

portunity. Aer all, they can spend the money on their own

scientists and corporations to launch initiatives that are

more likely benet their part o the world. Tere is no reason

r vrms r s ms Arc, As d

L Amrc rus vrms, dusrs r

scss bs crb-m ss w rc

r rss. I bsc dmsrb dw by

the states likely to conduct geoengineering, the govern-

ms b Su sud b mr suscus.

I bsc ubc db d wu ddrss

qus bw rc curs d r curs rms b src rssby r cm c

and the potential impacts o any techniques deployed to

ddrss r s c rcy.

Box 1: What is Geoengineering?Geoengineering is the intentional, large-scale inter-

vention in the Earths oceans, soils and/or the at-

mosphere with the aim o combatting climatechange. Geoengineering includes a wide range o

schemes, including: blasting sulate particles into

the stratosphere to relect the suns rays; dumping

iron particles in the oceans to nurture CO2-

absorbing plankton; iring silver iodide into clouds

to produce rain; genetically engineering crops to

have relective leaves. University o Calgary physi-

cist, David Keith, describes geoengineering as an

expedient solution that uses additional technology

to counteract unwanted eects without eliminating

their root cause.4

3. See Institute o Mechanical Engineers, Climate Change: Have We Lost the Battle, November 2009, available at http://www.imeche.org/about/keythemes/environment/Climate+Change/MAG

4. Op. cit.


7/44


Te United Nations Framework Convention on Climate

C (UNFCCC) Crc (COP 15) C

(7-18 Dcmbr 2009) s b bd s s cc r

international negotiators to agree on a post-2012 Framework

c br bu sc rducs GHG ms-

ss. T rs cmmm rd Ky Prc,

wc rd rc 2005 d s bd mss-

reduction targets or 37 industrialized countries plus the

European Community, expires in 2012.5 A new legally bind-

ing climate agreement was supposed to be sealed in the

Danish capita l at COP 15, but the chances o this happening

r w mscu.

I c, rc curs Ax 1, UNFCCC rc

r busy r w cs dwy xcs

or the Copenhagen conerence. Social movements and de-

v curs r drmd mk sur swho caused climate chaos take responsibility or it. Te word

wys Bkk, dur rc r-COP 15 -

gotiations (28 September 9 October), is that Annex 1 coun-

rs w bd Ky Prc d s

common but dierentiated responsibilities, which puts

the onus on those who have historically been the biggest

crb-m curs, d sr-rm dv-

curs cc d mks vry

share the climate debt that wealthy countries have incurred.

(Its difcult not to draw a parallel with the nancial bailout

wr vrms s rs ubc drs r-

tect banks and businesses while allowing more than a billion

people to go hungry, including an additional 150 million

people during the current ood crisis sparked itsel, in part,

by cm c d rus r susd m-

cm c.6)

T s-cd B Ac P (BAP), d

UNFCCCs COP 13 in 2007 established the Ad Hoc Working

Gru L-rm Crv Ac (AWG-LCA)

b u, cv d susd mm

the Convention7 in other words, to get things done.

cy s b dsd s ur rs

the Action Plan. (Te three other pillars are mitigation,

adaptation and nance.) While there are ew areas in which

Prs Cv r, bs s cs-

sus would likely start with a proession o aith in the power

cy dvr sus cm cs.

Te UNFCCCs Fact Sheet, Why is echnology so

Important?, sums up the Conventions stance: Environ-

my sud cs r b rvd w-w

solutions, allowing global economic growth and climate

change mitigation to proceed hand in hand.8 In other

wrds, cy w w us cu ur curr

rjcry wu y rducs rduc d c-sumption in act, technology will enable us to produce and

csum mr wu sur csqucs. Imc

cy s ccm r-

v scr. T r busss s surc sus

global climate change is universally recognized, according

Fc S.

Part I: The ContextTechnology, the UNFCCC and Geoengineering

Rich, panicky governments are hoping or quickfxes

rather than risk inconveniencing their electorate or o-

ending industry. As dangerous as geoengineering may

sound (and turn out to be), governments around the

world are aware that some action must be taken quickly.

Theyre also aware that carbon-trading schemes wont

put a dent in climate change. Geoengineering warrants

serious debate and preemptive action.

5. The reduction targets amount to an a verage o ve per cent against 1990 levels over the ve-year period 2008-2012. See http://unccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php6. The World Bank estimates that 75% o the 140% rise in world ood prices between 2002 and 2008 was due to agrouel production. See Asbjorn Eide, The Right to Food and the Impact o Liquid Agrouels

(Biouels), FAO, Rome, 2008, available at http://www.ao.org/righttoood/publi08/Right_to_Food_and_Biouels.pd and Olivier de Schutter, Background Note: Analysis o the World Food Crisis by the UN Special

Rapporteur on the Right to Food, available at http://www.srood.org/images/stories/pd/otherdocuments/1-srrtnoteglobaloodcrisis-2-5-08.pd

7. See http://unccc.int/meetings/items/4381.php

8. http://unccc.int/les/press/backgrounders/application/pd/act_sheet_on_technology.pd


8/44


Reerences to technology are sprinkled throughout the ~200

pages o the negotiating text on Long-term Cooperative

Actions,9 with the section on echnology presenting diverse

proposals or enhancing implementation o the Framework

Convention. Te terms environmentally-sound technolo-

s (ES) d vv cs r ubquus

though there is no explicit denition o what these concepts

m cx cm c m d d-

, d sccy bu wc cs r

vvd.

Tere are also numerous reerences to enabling environ-

m r cy rsr, cvr wd rry s-

sues, including intellectual property rights (IPRs), incentive

mechanisms, and the removal o barriers or technology

dvm d rsr. IPRs r rcury y c-

sd du wd dsrm bu wr y r-mote or inhibit innovations in climate technologies. (See

Gr d Icu Prry Cms, bw.)

T r rv scr dr ss

technology cycle and in nancing technology develop-

ment is another very contentious issue. Parties have submit-

ted proposals to leverage private investments in the deploy-

ment, diusion and transer o technologies, and in

connecting private companies that can provide specic

technologies to countries that have a lready adopted ap-

propriate measures that may become pre-requisites or

cy sur. Sm dvd curs, r xm-

, r rs rm vury cy

rms d rrss crv rsrc d

development and large-scale demonstration projects and

cy dym rjcs.

I css, cy cyc s udrsd s: r-

search, development, deployment, diusion and transer.

Tere is no provision or assessment, and no institution

crd w vu mcs cm r .

And there is no attempt to assess which technologies will be

most immediately useul, and or whom. In act, some ideas

k rc rd kwd sm-sc

armers through seed-saving and crop rotations, which are

kw cus rm cm, y scd dd

rcs suc s dusr, -u cs

like monoculture tree plantations or the production o

rus (s csdrd vrmy susb

technology) and biochar, i.e., using buried plant biomass as

a carbon sink. It is essential or negotiators at the UNFCCC

to keep in mind the ull suite o technologies that may come

y, cud r cs.

W wrd r ds (y) r

x, s s r cqus

are not explicitly excluded, it could be assumed they are

encompassed under the general term technology, and all theprovisions on enhanced action could thereore apply.

Gr cqus m sr rd

(.., rv su rm Er) cud s b

implied in the temperature reduction targets adopted by

states. Already, some geoengineering advocates (notably on

ocean ertilization and biochar) have tried to use the

Convention to get unproven technologies accredited under

C Dvm Mcsm (CDM), wc ws

countries with emission-reduction commitments to move

their obligation to an emission-reduction project in a devel-

oping country. I a technology as potentially harmul as

ocean ertilization or biochar becomes accredited under the

CDM, rs b md by us cs d Er

s crb sks w qucky subrd r v

ucs y srv by, bu cry uquy,

s d surcs.

Te nal section o this report, Reections and

Rcmmds, cuds dsrd ucms r cur-

rent UNFCCC negotiations as well as tracing a path orward

byd C.

9. Ad hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Actions, FCCC/AWGLCA/2009/INF.2 15 September 2009, available at http://unccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca7/eng/in02.pd


9/44


The Kyoto Protocol has three market-based mechanisms (emissions trading, joint implementation and the CleanDevelopment Mechanism [CDM]), which were introduced in the last hours o the Kyoto negotiations. The CDM

mechanism provides lexibility to rich countries unlikely to meet their emission reduction targets domestically by

allowing them to buy osets that support clean development in the South that would not have occurred without

osets (this is known as additionality) . That means, theoretically, large polluters in the North will invest in sus-

tainable projects in developing countries in order to compensate or the negative impact their own high emis-

sions. The process is overseen by a CDM executive board, under the authority o the Conerence o the Parties o

the UNFCCC. The number o CDM projects has exploded recently, growing ten old, or example, between 2005

and 2007 (rom 10 to 100 proposals a month). More than 4000 total projects have been supported.

The CDM has been widely criticized at a conceptual level as well as or the way it operates on the ground. Indeed,

the CDM itsel acknowledges the renewed urgency in 2009 [o] the task o improving the CDM.10 One big pro-

blem is that it does not actually reduce emissions but rather buys the biggest polluters more time, worsening theclimate crisis and allowing more and more GHGs into the atmosphere. In terms o its operations on the ground,

common criticisms include: a very small number o countries have received the bulk o the projects;11 local com-

munities are not properly involved in decision making, resulting in social and environmental hardships; monocul-

ture plantations by agro-orestry companies have replaced traditional and more sustainable land uses; large hydro-

electric power stations with negative local impacts have also been certiied under the CDM; indigenous peoples

have not been able to properly assert their rights in the processes.

While the problems with carbon trading and osetting are becoming steadily more apparent, inluential states

within the UNFCCC are working to increase the scope o such mechanisms, notably by the adoption and expansion

o REDD (Reducing Emissions rom Deorestation and Degradation in developing countries). Annex 1 countries

are ighting or an ambitious role or the international inancial institutions, particularly the World Bank, whe-reas developing countries are dis-satisied with its undemocratic governance structure (based on inancial con-

tributions) and prescriptive economic policies that have been so harmul over the past two decades.

CDM is at the centre o current negotiations both in regards to reorm and expansion into sectoral mecha-

nisms and policy CDM, as well as the eorts to expand its scope to include technologies such as CCS, nuclear

power and biochar. Critical assessment o CDM needs to include an understanding o what existing and new

technologies are under consideration.

Box 2: The Squeaky Clean Development Mechanism

9. Ad hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Actions, FCCC/AWGLCA/2009/INF.2 15 September 2009, available at http://unccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca7/eng/in02.pd

10. UNFCCC, Clean Development Mechanism: 2008 in Brie, p. 3, available at http://unccc.int/resource/docs/publications/08_cdm_in_brie.pd

11. In 2008 or example, three quarters o the projects went to China, India, Brazil and Mexico. Fewer than 3% o projects have gone to Arica. See UNFCCC, Clean Development Mechanism: 2008 in Brie

available at http://unccc.int/resource/docs/publications/08_cdm_in_brie.pd


10/44


How We Got Here:The Mainstreaming o Geoengineering

In a sense, geoengineering has always been on the table as a

possible response to climate change. As early as 1965, the

U.S. Prsds Scc Advsry Cmm wrd,

report called Restoring the Quality of Our Environment, that

CO2 msss wr mdy Ers bc.12

Tat report, regarded as the rst high-level acknowledgment

cm c, w rcmmd msss

rducs, bu su r s. T u-

thors o the report asserted, Te possibilities o deliber-

ately bringing about countervailing climatic changesneed

to be thoroughly explored and suggested that reective

rcs cud b dsrsd rc ss ( u

cost o around $500 million), which might also inhibit hur-

ricane ormation. Te Committee also speculated about

using clouds to counteract warming. As James Fleming, the

leading historian o weather modication, wryly notes: Ters vr fc rr wys ddrss cm c

ailed to mention the most obvious option: reducing ossil

u us.13

Forty years aer the release o the Science Advisory

Committees report, everybody, including nally the

s U.S. rsd, ws k bu b wrm;

scientists warned that the temperature rise on the Arctic ice

c d Sbr rmrs cud

environmental tailspin; and the U.S. Congress agreed to

study a bill that would establish a national Weather

Mdc Ors d Rsrc Brd. (W bill didnt pass, it was resucitated this year, made-over as the

Weather Mitigation Research and Development Policy

Authorization Act. In late July, the Committee on

Commerce, Science, and ransportation recommended the

w b b rd by r S.)

Te current debate over the possibility o engineering the

Earths climate can be traced to a paper14 co-authored by the

12. James Fleming, The Climate Engineers, Wilson Quarterly, spring 2007, available online: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cm?useaction=wq.essay&essay_id=231274 10. UNFCCC, Clean Development

Mechanism: 2008 in Brie, p. 3, available at http://unccc.int/resource/docs/publications/08_cdm_in_brie.pd

13. Ibid. The rest o this section relies heavily on Flemings article.14. Edward Teller, Lowell Wood and Roderick Hyde, Global Warming and Ice Ages: I. Prospects For Physics-Based Modulation O Global Change, 15 August 1997.

15. P.J. Crutzen, Geology o Mankind, Nature, Vol. 415, 3 January 2002.

16. M.I. Hoert, K. Caldeira, et al. Advanced Technology Paths to Global Climate Stability: Energy or a Greenhouse Planet, Science, Vol. 298, 1 November 2002, pp. 981-987 and P.J. Crutzen, Geology o

Mankind, Nature, Vol. 415, 3 January 2002.

17. E. Teller, R. Hyde and L. Wood, Active Climate Stabilization: Practical Physics-Based Approaches to Prevention o Climate Change, 18 April 2002.

Dr. Edwrd r Nb ur rssb r

the hydrogen bomb and one o the most politically inuen-

tial U.S. scientists in the latter hal o the 20th century. eller

lent his support to geoengineering when he and two col-

leagues submitted their paper to the 22nd International

Smr Pry Emrcs Erc, Scy 1997.

W urs dd rs r vws s b -

drsd by U.S. vrm, r wrk ws cducd

at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, under con-

rc w U.S. Drm Ery.

r m v b dsmssd s scs s s

rm ( ws 89 yrs d m Sc sm-

nar, aer all) except that another Nobel laureate, Paul J.

Cruz w w s Prz r r wrk

ozone layer amplied the scientic shockwave in 2002

when he oered grudging support or geoengineering in the

jur Nature.15

Sc wr v rcera when humans are increasingly aecting the climate,

Cruz susd, ur uur my w vv r-

tionally accepted, large-sca le geoengineering projects. Te

same year, Science published its own article arguing or

r s m rc cmb cm

c.16

Also in 2002, eller, who worked or the U.S. Department

o Energy, along with colleagues Roderick Hyde and Lowell

Wd, submd rc U.S. N Acdmy

Er wc y rud r

rduc GHG msss s mdd

by the pertinent provisions o the UN Framework

Cv Cm C.17

In 2005, another high prole climatologist, Yuri , ormer

vice-chair o the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

C d d Mscw-bsd Isu Gb

Climate and Ecology Studies, wrote to Russian president

Vladimir Putin outlining a proposal to release 600,000

s suur rs msr k w


11/44


degrees o global temperatures. In 2009, Izrael actually did

rs r-wrd xrm xrm s kd.

Paul Crutzen returned to the debate in August 2006

w wr dr ssy jur Climatic

Change c r cv rsrc us sub-m-

crmr -szd su-bsd rss rc su srsr rdr c Er.18 Cruz,

a proessor at the Max-Planck-Institute or Chemistry in

Mainz, Germany, opined that high-altitude balloons and

r ry cs cud b usd bs suur dxd

srsr, c, smu vcc ru.

T suur dxd wud cvr su rcs. T

cs, rckd, wud ru bw $25 d $50 b

per year a gure, he argued, that was well below the trillion

drs s uy by wrds vrms d-

ense. Crutzen noted that his cost estimates did not include

um cs rmur ds rm rcu -lution. Such tiny reective particles could be resident in the

r r w yrs. Cruz wy ckwdd s

was a risky proposition and insisted that it should be under-

k y s s. H w dd -

c w d y s smd v d rdy.

A dr sm ssu Climatic Change by R

J. Cicerone, an atmospheric chemist and president o the

U.S. N Acdmy Sccs, s surd urr

research on Crutzens geoengineering proposals. He told

T New York Times md-2006: W sud r sds k y r rsrc d md-s

k m srusy.19

By Nvmbr, NASAs Ams Rsrc Cr d c-

vd m r dvcs x-

r s w Lw Wd rsd. M s

d s , ys-

cs rrdy d ru. T m s cm, r-

gued, or an intelligent elimination o undesired heat rom

bsr by cc wys d ms. Accrd

Wood, his engineering approach would provide instant

cmc rc. Frm m cm b-s cm scur ud r r

cqus rqur d rscby d s.

18. P.J. Crutzen, Albedo Enhancement by Strat ospheric Sulur Injections: A Contribution to Resolve a Policy Dilemma? Climatic Change, 2006.

19. William J. Broad, How to Cool a Planet (Maybe), The New York Times, June 27, 2006.


12/44


Media Blitz: Increase in Publications WhilePolicymakers Test the Waters

o date, current support or geoengineering has come rom

scientic and political circles, as well as mainstream media.

Oc w rm cm scss d drsd -

r s sccy crdb dvr r

publishing in the eld exploded both in scholarly journals

Scientic Articles on Geoengineering beore and ater 2002 Media Coverage o Geoengineering Articles beore and ater 2002

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Magazines

Blogs

Newspapers

19942001 20022009

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

19942001 20022009

(ms v-d crs) d ur rss ( 12-

d crs), s s rs bw.20 I s w -

cy-crrc k bu r s m

rss cm c: crdby s T Nw

Yrk ms cd mjr rvrs. 21

20. Publication searches were conducted August 25, 2009. For scholarly articles: Google Scholar or the years 1994-2001 and 2002-present (search terms geoengineering and climate change in the

ollowing categories: Biology, Lie Sciences, and Environmental Science; Chemistry and Materials Science; Engineering, Computer Science, and Mathematics; Physics, Astronomy, and Planetary Science; Social

Sciences, Arts, and Humanities. For major media coverage: Lexis Nexis or the years 1994-2001 and 2002-present (search terms geoengineering climate change) in newspapers stories (major world newspa-

pers), weblogs and magazines.

21. William J. Broad, How to Cool a Planet (Maybe), The New York Times, June 27, 2006.

22. Seth Borenstein, Associated Press, April 9, 2009. See Global warming is so dire, the Obama administration is discussing radical technologies to cool Earths air, available online: http://abcnews.go.com/

Technology/GlobalWarming/wireStory?id=729517823. Steven Chu discussed geoengineering at the S t Jamess Palace Nobel Laureate Symposium in London held on May 26-28, 2009.

24. See www.americasclimatechoices.org/GeoEng%20Agenda%206-11-09.pd

25. J. J. Blackstock, D. S. Battisti, K. Caldeira, D. M. Eardley, J. I. Katz, D. W. Keith, A. A. N. Patrinos, D. P. Schrag, R. H. Socolow and S. E. Koonin, Climate Engineering Responses to Climate Emergencies (Novim,

2009), archived online at: http://arxiv.org/pd/0907.5140

26. Accessed 16 O ctober 2009 at http://carbonsequestration.blogspot.com/2008/02/uk-environmental-minister-ocean.html

I Ar 2009, J Hdr, C Scc Advsr U.S.

President Barack Obama, conceded that the administration

is considering geoengineering options to combat climate

change.22 Te next month, U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu

indicated his support or technological solutions to climate

change, including benign geoengineering schemes that

wd rs.23 I Ju, N Acdms

bdy skd w dvs U.S. vrm sc-

tic issues hosted a two-day workshop on Geoengineering

Os Rsd Cm C: Ss Esbs

Rsrc Ad.24 Sv K, Udr Scrry r

Science in the U.S. Department o Energy, was instrumental

rr rr ubsd Juy, wc csdrd

the technical easibility o putting aerosol sulates in the

srsr wr b mrurs.25

O r sd Ac, scc cy sb-

lishment was also warming to geoengineering. A high-pro-

le exhibition at Londons Science Museum, Can Algae

Sv T Wrd? ccdd w rrs sr UK

environment minister was a closet an o ocean ertilization.

In a 2008 letter submitted to a geoengineering blog, the

anonymous minister wrote that ocean ertilization, be-

cause o it's [sic] enormous potential simply must (I will

emphasize the word must) be explored vigorouslythe

question is how to do this without engendering public

s.26


13/44


Te UK Parliamentary Innovation, Science, University and

Skills Committee has issued a report recommending re-

src r bsd u rm s 2008-

2009 session.27 Early in 2009, the German Minister o

Research authorized an ocean ertil ization geoengineering

experiment in the Scotia Sea despite the existence o a mor-

atorium on the practice that his own government had helped

broker at the UN Convention on Biological Diversity in

2008.28

In April 2009, Portugals Ministry or Science,

echnology and Higher Education convened a Chatham

House Rules session on geoengineering.29 In September, the

Ry Scy UKs cdmy scc -

lowed with the launch o a report, Geoengineering the

Climate: Science, Governance and Uncertainty,30 giving geo-

r ruby s bs crdby-bs d.T urs Ry Scy rr rud -

engineering is an insurance policy an unsatisactory and

hopeully distant Plan B, but one that should be considered

w d ursvs cm mrcy. T urs

ckwd r r my wys r

planet and admit that little is known about the potential

social and environmental impacts. Te report recommends

vrms ud ddcd, -yr r-

ally coordinated geoengineering research programme (100

m wc wud cm rm UK vrm).

Te bulk o this research would be in the orm o monitoring

and computer simulations, but the report also recommends

d rs r svr cs.

From some perspectives, the reports insistence that geo-

engineering be understood as an insurance policy may

seem prudent, practical and even precautionary. But the

reports explicit endorsement o geoengineering research

27. See Recommendations 24 and 25 o House o Commons Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee, Engineering: turning ideas into reality, Fourth Report o Session 200809, Volume 1, p. 117.

28. For more inormation, see ETC Group news release, German Geo-engineers Show Iron Will to Dey Global UN Moratorium, 8 Jan. 2009, available online at http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publica-

tions.html?pub_id=710

29. See http://www.irgc.org/Geoengineering.html30. Available online at www.royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=35151

31. Even geoengineering schemes such as covering deserts in refective polyethylene-aluminum or putting mirrors in space, or example, are not dismissed rom uture consideration and thereore could be

eligible or research unding rom the UK government.

32. Personal email communication between Royal Society Director o Science Policy and ETC Group.

33. (http://www.iop.org/Media/Press%20Releases/press_36613.html).

and real-lie experimentation and its unwillingness to

reject even the most outlandish schemes31 is troubling. Te

mus r rr, ccrd Ry Scy, ws

the need to equip governments and society with an analysis

scc rsks d bs vvd. Ofcs v

pointed to the escalating interest in geoengineering over the

rvus svr ms d ssd y bd

k sk br rur crsy

mc db.32

Unortunately (or maybe predictably) the occasion o the

Ry Scy rr ws usd by svr dvcs

geoengineering approach as an apt moment to ampliy their

w vws. Ncsrvvs crss Ac c-

operated to launch a high prole report on why geoengi-

neering is cheaper than climate mitigation (see Te

Lomborg Manoeuvre below), the UKs Institute oMcc Ers d Ry Scy s

by releasing their own avourable analysis o geoengineering

dy rr d Ry Scys w wrk

ru mmbrs, Dr Pr Cx (w s dv -

r rjc rs Ws Arc) usd rs

rr uc sc r d

Physics Worldudr mr m -

neering taboo33. Te result was that the details o the Royal

Societys report were lost under an avalanche o simultane-

us r-r rss rss.

Geoengineering has also recently received attention rom

international agencies such as the World Bank in its latest

World Development Report34 and the United Nations

Environment Programme (UNEP) in its recent compen-

dum scc kwd ubsd sc s IPCC

rr.35 T UNEP suss ssu by vs--

vs r mus b dscussd bu s ssmsc


14/44


rscs r y r vrc r ru-

: Csdr w dfcu s b rc r-

m bvus cm c sus bsd

cmm bu drd rssbs, ucr-

ties involved in geoengineering schemes will likely pro-

b y b rm dbry rr w

Earths Systems.36 Previous reports o the IPCC have made

y cursry d crc ms r, bu

its next report is likely to cover the eld in more depth, given

geoeengineerings recent credibility surge and that a number

rm r scss s s s.

I we could come up with a geoengineering answer

to this problem, then Copenhagen wouldnt be

necessary. We could carry on fying our planes and

driving our cars.37

Sir Richard Branson, industrialist and airline owner

34. Geoengineering the world out o climate change in World Development Report 2010: Development and Climate Change, Box 7.1, p. 301; online at http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTDEC/

EXTRESEARCH/EXTWDRS/EXTWDR2010/0,,menuPK:5287748~pagePK:64167702~piPK:64167676~theSitePK:5287741,00.html

35. UNEP, Climate Change Science Compendium 2009, online at http://www.unep.org/compendium2009/

36. Ibid., p. 53.

37. Andew C. Revkin, Branson on the Power o Biouels and Elders, Dot Earth Blog, The New York Times, October 15, 2009, online at http://dotEarth.blogs.nytimes.com/


15/44


The Lomborg Manoeuvre: Once ClimateChange Denier, Now Geoengineering Devotee

A dd c rs msrm s b

an alignment o the positions o some interest groups that

were previously diametrically opposed. While some long-

time climate scientists such as Paul Crutzen and Ken Caldeira

cm v y rduy d rucy mbrcd -

engineering earing devastating eects rom climate change,

w d wru crr bby r r s

mrd s w yrs md u ws m-

v s vr b ccr r vrm r

wrds rs .

In June 2008, Newt Gingrich, ormer Speaker o the House

U.S. Crss, s r udrds usds

Amrcs ur m s rsd s

address global warming. Gingrich argued or geoengineering

the atmosphere with sulates as a better option to ght climate

change. Geoengineering holds orth the promise o address-

b wrm ccrs r jus w b drs year, wrote Gingrich. Instead o penalizing ordinary

Americans, we would have an option to address global warm-

ing by rewarding scientic innovationBring on the

Amrc Iuy. S r .38

Gingrich is a senior ellow o the American Enterprise

Isu (AEI) -csrvv k k rm

r rrs d md vrm csy sscd

w rc Bus dmsr. AEI s s w u-

m r rjc d by L L, w rmry

ssud src dvc Bus dmsr. I 2009,

L d c-ur J. Erc Bck ubsd AAyss

Cm Er s Rss Cm C39,

report advocating adding geoengineering to existing re-

sss cm c bss cs-b -

yss. L d Bck cmd sry s-wr cuds

m x cm c d rby dd $20 r

global economy. Te report was published and widely broad-

cast by Bjrn Lomborgs Copenhagen Consensus Center.

Lmbr s bs kw s s-syd d crvrs

Skeptical Environmentalist who has consistently down-

played the existence and importance o climate change much

r cm scss. Lmbr s w us s

C Cssus Cr d md r us

r r s P B cm c, bu

P A rrrd ru c .

Te Lomborg maneuver switching rom opposing

r-wrd c cm c sur ms

xrm ssb c cm c s w bcm-

ing seemingly de rigueur among industrial apologists, ormer

climate change skeptics and deniers, especially in the

United States. Besides Lane and Gingrich at AEI, political

operators at the Cato Institute, the Tomas Jeerson institute,

the Hoover Institution, the Competitive Enterprise Institute,

Huds Isu, Hrd su, Ir-

tional Policy Network andand elsewhere are now increas-

ingly proessing their aith in the geoengineering gospel.

W cm scss d cvss v jus bu d-

bate geoengineering, the topic has been a mainstay o discus-

sion or several years now at the Heartland Institutes

International Conerence on Climate Change, dubbed theannual climate deniers jamboree with several invited

ks d rss by r dvcs.

Fr s w rvusy dubd (r s d) scc

o anthropogenic global warming, the geoengineering ap-

rc ss dscuss rm rduc msss

end-o-pipe solution. Once geoengineering is an option, there

is no longer a need to bicker about who put the carbon dioxide

in the atmosphere (or ask them to stop). I we have the means

suck u rus ss r ur dw rms,

mrs c cu ubd. A s cmmr

has charged that the wholesale embrace o geoengineering by

dusry-rdy k ks rrss dbr cc

o distract ion and delay by the same olks who ormerly used

oil company dollars to discredit the science o climate change.

I we can be made to believe that mega-scale geoengineering

can stop climate change, then delay begins to look not like the

dangerous olly it actually is, but a sensible prudence, ex-

s Ax S, dr Wrdc.cm.40 Idd,

s r cm skc, Ju Mrrs

International Policy Network, asserts, Diverting money into

controlling carbon emissions and away rom geoengineering

s rbby mry rrssb. 41

38. http://newt.org/tabid/102/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/3475/Deault.aspx

39. Available at http://xtheclimate.com/component-1/the-solutions-new-research/climate-engineering

40. Alex Steen, Geoengineering and the New Climate Denialism, 29 April 2009; available on the Internet at http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/009784.html

41. Chris Bowlby, A quick x or global warming, BBC News, 31 July 2008; available on the Internet at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7533600.stm


16/44


Technology, the UNFCCC and Agriculture

W cus s rr s mr -

r cs, mus r my r

existing technology areas that pose similar challenges.

Apart rom obvious, controversial technologies such as nu-

clear power and carbon capture and storage (CCS), tech-

s rd rcuur d d us r ky

cx cm c s.

Accrd IPCC, rcuur s surc r 14%

b GHG msss, w buk cm rm -

dustrial production due to the heavy reliance on ossil uels

throughout its supply chain. Small-scale agriculture, in ad-

d d mjry wrds ,42 s

muc r r. Nss, UNFCCC -

s v ry rd s rcuur

d r cus w crs rducvy

large-scale, industrial agriculture and to enhance its value

by x s s crb sk, scy vast-growing monocultures and biochar, with REDD

(Reducing Emissions rom Deorestation and Degradation

in Developing Countries) as the dominant model or discus-

s.

While commercial breeders (o crops and livestock) stress

yd d urmy (b r d rcss)

and depend heavily on external inputs, peasant breeding

srsss rby d rssc ss, dsss d d-

verse weather conditions. As global agriculture encounters

climate change, armers will not only ace radically dierent

mrurs d rw cds, bu s y r-

ratic conditions that will place the premium on diversity

and exibility. In other words, large monocultures o ge-

netically uniorm plant varieties wil l be the most vulnerable

cm c. Ts ds m ss v

ud swr cm c d w c rx.

N c ss rm ry rcuur

b Su s xrc rs d ms dm

mcs cm c rdy.

Bu ds m ss mus k d d-

veloping strategies including technological strategies to

m d d cm crss. Ts ds m b-

d r cv brry rsrc.

Te Western model o science and technology has developed

micro-techniques that can have macro applications high-

c dvcs v cs ruu r

much o the world. Peasant research oen develops macro-

technologies or microenvironments wide-tech com-

x, rd srs r c scc.

Agbiotech, biouels and synthetic biology rms are all

rc dv cm-rdy crs w squsr

carbon dioxide, reect solar rays, or withstand environmen-

tal stresses attributable to climate change (extreme heat,

drought, or example). Grown over large areas o plains,

rrs, ms r Pujb, ry s rcu-

tural crops with one or more o these traits could play a

usu r rc rm cm c r

adapting it to a warming world while continuing to provided, d, u d br.

A rc rr by EC Gru43 dd 532 rc

patent applications or crops engineered with climate-ready

traits. Six o the world's largest chemical companies (BASF,

Ms, Byr, DuP, Dw d Sy) r cvy

engaged in developing climate-ready crops. BASF and

Ms v $1.5 b j vur dv c-

m-rdy vrs d, r, v cr

55 cr s dd by EC Gru My 2008.

Indirectly (with their smaller biotech partners), the two

companies control almost two-thirds o the key climate-

rdy s.

Te implications o industrially produced, genetically

engineered climate-ready crops with a smal l number o

wru mu cms cr ms

ood chain are serious or both climate change and ood

security. Certainly, i vast areas o cropland are sown to

cy urm vrs scy rc

and subtropical areas o intense sunlight the strategy could

xcrb c rs d scs dscm. Ms

scy, mv cr rduc ds rmry

42. ETC Group, Who Will Feed Us? Questions or Food/Climate Crises Negotiators in Rome and Copenhagen, Communiqu #102, November, 2009, www.etcgroup.org.

43. ETC Group, Patenting the Climate GenesAnd Capturing the Climate Agenda, Communiqu #99, May/June 2008, on t he Internet: http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=687


17/44


ree o industrial agricultural production (such as wetlands)

could threaten the biodiversity o those ecosystems and the

vds w v r. I cm-rdy rs

ucrss wd vrs r v rz w

soil, signicant ecosystem changes could ollow. I the mod-

ied varieties require special chemical applications, the

increase in chemical-use could be detrimental to local ora,

u, rmrs d csumrs.

Te Copenhagen process will likely deliver a programme o

work on agriculture to the UNFCCCs SBSA (Subsidiary

Body or Scientic and echnological Advice). I we are not

xcrb rbms bcy s rdy

delivered to the worlds ood systems, representatives o

small-scale armers and real sustainable agriculture will

d d r wy b.


18/44


Part II:

Geoengineering: The Technologies

Geoengineering technologies can be divided into three

broad areas: solar radiation management (SRM), carbon

dxd rmv d squsr, d wr mdc-

. I s sc w rs rvd cdsd vrvw

ky cs curry udr dvm, -

lowed by three case studies with more in depth analysis and

a concluding section on the link to intellectual property

rs.

Box 3: Proo o Principle Is Geoengineering Feasible?

Unortunately, humanity has already proven massive Earth restructuring to be wonderully operational. Fill

enough wetlands and introduce crop monocultures in enough ields and the ecosystem changes. Cut down

enough orests and the climate changes. Build up suicient industrial pollution and the ozone disappears and the

smog rolls in. Geoengineerings proo o principle is maniest!

Ten old ways to geoengineer the planet:

Cut down most o the worlds orests; Convert savannas and marginal land into monoculture cropland;

Dam watersheds, divert rivers, dry-up wetlands and drain aquiers;

Pump billions o tonnes o industrial pollutants, car exhaust and other toxic chemicals into the stratosphere

and soil every year;

Wipe out species and genetic diversity in livestock & crops;

Overuse marginal lands leading to soil erosion and desertiication;

Erode the worlds major ecosystems;

Deplete possibly beyond recall most commercial marine species;

Condemn hal o the worlds coral rees to extinction;

Pollute almost all o the worlds resh water reserve.

Ten new ways to geoengineer the planet:

Create vast monoculture tree plantations or biochar, biouels & CO2 sequestration;

Contaminate Centres o Genetic Diversity with DNA rom genetically engineered crops;

Fertilize the ocean with iron nanoparticles to increase phytoplankton that theoretically sequester CO2;

Prolierate nuclear power plants;

Build 16 trillion space sunshades to delect sunlight 1.5 million km rom Earth;

Launch 5,000-30,000 ships with turbines to propel salt spray to whiten clouds to delect sunlight;

Drop limestone into the ocean to change its acidity so that it can soak up extra CO2;

Store compressed CO2 in abandoned mines and active oil wells;

Biannually, blast sulate-based aerosols into the stratosphere to delect sunlight;

Cover deserts with white plastic to relect sunlight.


19/44


John Latham (University oManchester, UK), Stephen Salter

(University o Edinburgh, UK)

Spraying seawater into clouds toincrease their condensation nuclei;

the clouds will be whiter andwill reect more o the sunlightaway rom Earth.

Cloud whitening

Geoengineering Technology Description Key Researchers/Advocates

Lowell Wood (Lawrence Liver-more National Laboratory, USA),Ken Caldeira (Stanord Univer-sity, USA), Yuri Izrael (ResearchInstitute o Global Climate andEcology, Russian Academy oSciences, Moscow), Paul Crutzen(Max Planck Institute o Chemis-try, Germany)

Roger Angel and Nick Wool(University o Arizona, USA), DavidMiller (Massachusetts Institute oTechnology, USA), S. Pete Worden(NASA, USA)

Pumping aerosolized sulates intothe stratosphere to block sunlight,thereby lowering the Earths tem-perature. This has no eect on thelevel o GHGs in atmosphere.

Trillions o small, ree-yingspacecrats would be launched amillion miles above the Earth toorm a cylindrical cloud 60,000miles long, aligned with the orbito the sun, which should divertabout 10% o sunlight away romthe planet.

Aerosolized sulates instratosphere

Space sunshades

Table 1: Geoengineering Technology

Solar radiation management technologies aim at countering

the eects o the greenhouse gases by increasing the radiation

su bck sc. Sm s cs -

d d s by r cds surc

Er by cvr dsrs w rcv sc mr;

other technologies aim to modiy the atmosphere by adding

reective pollution, while some technologies even try to

block some o the incoming sunlight by installing shades in

space. Common to all these technologies is that they do not

uc ccr rus ss; y r

only intended to counter some o their eects. A removal or

malunctioning o these technologies would thus lead to

drsc mrur crss vry qucky.

Implications:Solar radiation management (blocking or reecting sun-

) s cus sc vrm

damage, including releasing additional greenhouse gases

into the atmosphere, changing weather patterns and reduc-

r , dm z yr, dms bd-

versity, making solar cells less eective by reducing the

mu rcvd su, d rsk sudd cmc

jums rs r sd. SRM w ddrss

problem o atmospheric GHGs or ocean acidication. Even

mr crcy: w crs Ers rms? W

w mk dcs dy suc drsc msurs

r csdrd ccy sb?

Solar Radiation Management (SRM)


20/44


Alvia Gaskill (Environmental Reer-ence Materials, Inc., USA)

Leslie Field (Stanord Universityand Ice911 Research Corpora-tion, USA), Jason Box, Ohio StateUniversity, USA

Hashem Akbari and Surabi Menon(Lawrence Berkeley National Labo-ratory, USA)

Andy Ridgwell (University oBristol, UK); all agbiotech frms,including BASF, Syngenta, Mon-santo

Covering large expanses o desertwith reective sheets to reectsunlight away rom Earth.

Covering snowpack or glaciers inthe Arctic with insulating materialor a nano-flm to reect sunlightand prevent melting.

Painting roos and road suraceswhite to reect sunlight (low-techgeoengineering).

Includes technologies to increasealbedo (reectivity) and to makeplants and trees drought, heat orsaline resistant.

Desert covering

Arctic ice covering

White roos and pavements

Climate ready crops

Dr Lowell Wood and Proessor

Edward Teller (Lawrence LivermoreLab, USA), Stewart Brand, TheLong Now Foundation, USA

Putting a superfne reective mesh

o aluminum threads betweenEarth and sun.

Space mirrors


Peter Cox (University o Exeter,UK), Ray Taylor (The Global Cool-ing Project, UK)

Engineering large-scale changesin water movements in order toprovoke cloud ormation to reectsunlight.

Large scale land-use change/rainwater harvesting

Searete; Intellectual Ventures, BillGates.

Attempting to prevent the orma-tion or aect the pathways ostorms

Storm modifcation (eg. re-directing or suppressing hur-ricanes)


21/44


Carbon dioxide removal and sequestration are geoengineer-

ing technologies that attempt to remove carbon dioxide

rm msr r s b rsd. Sm

cs us mcc dvcs d s, rs md-

iy the chemical balance in the oceans to stimulate increased

uptake o CO2, while other technologies manipulate species

d csysms cr w rms crb sks.

Implications:

Most o these technologies intervene in complex ecosystems

w mdy m d r rr ky

cus urdcb sd cs. T dur d s-

ty o sequestration in land or sea (whether through biologi-

c r mcc ms) r msy ukw; d my

s cqus rqur d/c us cs, wc

w vy c r d mrzd .


Dan Whaley and Margaret Leinen(Climos, Inc., USA), Victor Smeta-cek (Alred Wegener Institute,Germany); Wajih Naqvi (National

Institute o Oceanography, India);Ian S.F. Jones (Ocean Nourish-ment Corporation, Australia), RussGeorge (Planktos Science, USA),Michael Markels (GreenSea Ven-tures, Inc., USA)

David Keith (University o Calgary,Canada), petroleum companiessuch as Royal Dutch Shell and BP

Peter Read (Massey University,New Zealand), Johannes Lehmann(Cornell University, USA), CraigSams (Carbon Gold, UK), Tim Lang-ley (Carbonscape, NZ)

David Keith (University o Calgary,Canada), Klaus Lackner (GlobalResearch Technology, LLC, USA),Roger Pielke (University o Colo-rado, USA and Oxord, UK)

Adding nutrients to ocean waterto stimulate the growth o phyto-plankton in an attempt to promotecarbon sequestration in deep sea.

Diverse technologies that use bio-logical, chemical or physical proc-esses to bury carbon in geologi-cal ormations such as depletedpetroleum reserves, coal beds ordeep in the seabed (CO2 lakes).

Burning biomass through pyrolysis(in low oxygen environments socarbon is not released) and bury-ing the concentrated carbon insoil.

Extracting CO2 rom the air by us-ing liquid sodium hydroxide, whichis converted to sodium carbonate,then extracting the carbon dioxidein solid orm to be buried.

Ocean ertilization with iron ornitrogen

Carbon capture and sequestration(CCS)

Biochar

Carbon-sucking machines orsynthetic trees

Carbon Dioxide Removal and Sequestration


22/44


James Lovelock (UK) and ChrisRapley (London Science Museum,

UK), Philip W. Kithil, (Atmocean,Inc., USA)

Ian S.F. Jones (Ocean NourishmentCorporation, Australia), Tim Kruger(CQuestrate, UK)

R. D. Schuiling and P. Krijgs-man (Institute o Earth Sciences,Utrecht, Netherlands)

Stuart Strand (University oWashington, USA)

J. Craig Venter (SyntheticGenomics, Inc., USA)

Using pipes to bring up nitrogen orphosphorous enriched seawater tothe surace to cool surace watersand enhance ocean sequestrationo CO2.

Increasing ocean alkalinity in orderto increase carbon uptake.

Controlling levels o atmosphericCO2 by spreading fne-powderedolivine (magnesium iron silicate)on armland or orestland.

Storing carbon by dumping treelogs into seawater.

Engineering communities osynthetic microbes and algae tosequester higher levels o carbondioxide, either or altering oceancommunities or or use in closedponds Engineering communitieso synthetic microbes and algae tosequester higher levels o carbondioxide, either or altering ocean

communities or or use in closedponds.

Ocean upwelling or downwellingenhancement

Adding carbonate to the ocean

Enhanced Weathering

Crop Residue Ocean PermanentSequestration

Genetically engineered algae andmarine microbes



23/44


Te idea that humans might intentionally control the weath-

er has a long history reaching back to indigenous rain danc-

es and lighting o res. Since the 1830s governments and

private companies have attempted to apply technological

kw-w rduc rc r rsr srms by

altering landorms, burning orests and dropping chemicals

cuds b r mry d rcuur urss.

As climate change ushers in increased extreme weather

vs r rm dru rc srms, ms

to control weather are now witnessing a resurgence. Weather

modication is a classic end o the pipe geoengineering

rss ddrsss r cuss r mc-

sm cm c s bu y sks r s u-

comes. Weather modication has also been advanced as an

adapation technology or climate change (e.g., or protecting

wr w r ydrwr scms).

Implications:

Gv ucry rdc v ur wr,

rv fccy rc wr s rusy d-

cult, but the agronomic and geopolitical implications may

be very signicant. Since weather is complex and inher-

y rsbudry r my b uwcm d ur-

dictable side eects at weather modication attempts.

Producing rainall at one location may be regarded as a

the o that rainal l rom elsewhere, especially i crops ail

s rsu. Irvs suc s swc curs

urrc my cus xsv dm r s d

my r b csdrd c Gd. A srs -

ms wr wrr dur Vm wr udr

cdm Or Py d r

agreement to ban hostile uses o weather modication tech-

qus. T bw w s s r cu usmy b dfcu drm.

44. See, or example, plans by Pacic Gas and Electric Company (Caliornia) to use cloud seeding in the Pit and McCloud Watersheds to oset snow pack loss rom climate change: Christina Aanestad, Seeding

Clouds or Hydropower, Climate Watch, KQED Radio, 2009, online at http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/2009/09/05/seeding-clouds-or-hydropower/

Weather Modifcation

Chinese Meteorological Associa-tion; Bruce Boe (Weather Modif-cation, Inc.)

Dropping chemicals (usually silveriodide) into clouds to precipitaterain or snow - already practicedon a large scale in the U.S. andChina, despite skepticism o e-ectiveness.

Cloud seeding

Gel Technologies IncAttempting to prevent ormation.Storm modifcation


24/44


It has taken us some time to realize the inuence we can wield over the planet. Back in 1930, Robert Millikan physicist and Nobel Laureate insisted there was no danger that human activity could do lasting harm to

anything as massive as Earth. Even as he was speaking, chemists were inventing CFCs chlorouorocarbons thechemical cocktail responsible or thinning stratospheric ozone at an alarming rate, whose use eventually led tointergovernmental policy action in the mid-1980s: The Vienna and Montral Accords phased out the productiono CFCs.

Likewise, the notion o a technological fx or global warming isnt new either. In the 1940s, Bernard Vonnegut(the novelist Kurt Vonneguts brother) a well-respected meteorologist discovered that silver iodide smokecould cause clouds to give up their rain. His discovery kick-started serious government eorts to manipulate theenvironment. Until then, cloud-seeding had been the preserve o crackpots and con artists, but by 1951, 10 %o the U.S. was said to be under clouds that had been commercially seeded. Governments and industry have asometimes ignoble history tampering with the weather, including the CIAs top secret Project Popeye rainmak-ing campaign that began in 1966 and ran or seven years, conducting 2300 cloud seeding missions over the HoChi Minh Trail during the Vietnam War. The goal was to make the Trail impassible and, as a bonus, to drown outNorth Vietnams rice crop. (While rains did increase, the Air Force couldnt establish a clear link between this andthe covert campaign.)

As the UN Conerence on the Human Environment was convening in Stockholm in 1972, a cloudburst drowned238 people in Rapid City, South Dakota, USA on a day when seeding experiments were going on nearby. Overtime, the public has built up a healthy distrust o both public and private eorts to inject natural clouds withartifcial silver linings.

Recently, more convincing experiments have ocused on hygroscopic cloud seeding that is, warm-cloudseeding as opposed to cold-cloud seeding (glaciogenic). Results rom experiments at the South Arican NationalPrecipitation and Rainall Enhancement Programme earned researchers there the United Arab Emirates 2005Prize or Excellence in Advancing the Science and Practice o Weather Modifcation. Other warm-cloud seeding

projects have taken place in the USA, Thailand, China, India, Australia, Israel, South Arica, Russia, United ArabEmirates and Mexico. According to the UNs World Meteorological Organization (WMO), at least 26 governmentswere routinely conducting weather-altering experiments at the turn o this century. By 2003-2004, only 16 WorldMeterological Organization member countries reported weather modifcation activities, although weather modif-cation activities are known to have taken place in many other countries.

Many o the worlds military powers remain ascinated with weather control. A U.S. Air Force report entitled

Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025 concluded that the weather can provide bat-tlespace dominance to a degree never beore imagined, including the ability to thwart an enemys operationsby enhancing a storm or by inducing drought and reducing resh water supplies. In 2004, two Chinese cities inHenan province Pingdingshan and Zhoukou came close to fghting when both cities leaders tried to alterlocal weather patterns by blasting tiny silver iodide particles into the troposphere (the lowest portion o Earthsatmosphere). The city downwind accused the city upwind o stealing its weather. This didnt deter the Chinese

government rom using weather modifcation to end o rain during the 2008 Beijing Olympics. That eort wasdwared by the weather intervention at the beginning o October 2009 involving 260 technicians and 18 air-crat which tried to secure clear skies or the National Day Parade.

Box 4: Geoengineering A Brie Technical History


25/44


Case Study 1: Ocean Fertilization

The theoryOceans play a key role in regulating the worlds climate.

Pyk (mcrrsms dw surc

o the ocean), despite their minute size, collectively account

r crb dxd bsrbd uy rm

Ers msr by s. Tru rcss -

tosynthesis, plankton capture carbon and sunlight or

rw, rs xy msr. T wrds

oceans have already absorbed about a third o all carbon

dioxide (CO2) humans have generated over the last 200

yrs.45 Accrd NASA, bu 90% wrds

carbon content has settled to the bottom o the ocean, most-

y rm dd bmss.46

Proponents o ocean ertilization posit that dumping

nutrients (generally iron, nitrogen or phosphorous) in

waters identied as high nutrient low chlorophyll (HNLC)

.., wr r r w ccrs ykdu bsc ur w sur rw

phytoplankton. Since phytoplankton use CO2 or photo-

syss, d s crs u y-

k w crs CO2 -bsr. Ty ru

w dvdu yk d ( s y-

k s sr w dys ms), y w

ocean oor leading to the long-term sequestration o carbon

at the deeper levels o the sea. Te goal o commercial enter-

prises engaged in ocean ertilization is to prot rom selling

crb crds r ss r squsrd CO2 ru

vury r rud crb mrks.Phytoplankton populations in the worlds oceans are

dc s rsu cm c d wrmr wr

mrurs. T mu r s ury ds-

d rm msrc dus cuds b cs

(providing nutrients or phytoplankton) has also decreased

dramatically in recent decades. According to NASA satellite

d, s wr mrurs crsd rm 1999 2004,

the oceans microscopic plant lie dropped signicantly.

Ocs rud qur Pcc sw s muc s

50 rc dr yk rduc. Advcs

o iron ertilization schemes believe that iron is the missing

ur w rsr yk d squsr w

r b xr s crb dxd vry yr

ruy -rd - b dusry d u-

mb msss. Sm rs c (scy

r Arcc d Arcc crcs) r ur-rc bu

anemic they lack sufcient iron to stimulate plankton

growth. With the addition o iron in these presumably oth-

rws y zs, scss crs k

growth thereby increasing the absorption o CO2. However,

U.S. and Canadian scientists, writing in the journal Science,

u cs d wbs d bcmc

cycs wud b rd udd wys.47 Ty wr

crb rd scms mk rb r cm-

s c rz, cumuv -

cs my suc mms wud rsu r-sc csqucs cssc rdy cmms.

Ors r my b cs y ur

deciency researchers have identied silicate as a crucial

cm crb xr, r xm bu c cr-

rection to ocean water composition could have unintended

cs.

Whos involved?Tere are both commercial and scientic ventures involved

c rz d s 13 xrms v b

crrd u wrds cs vr s 20 yrs. A

2007 experiment near the Galapagos Islands by U.S. start-up

Planktos, Inc. was stopped because o an international civil

scy cm (s Bx 5, bw.) T cmy ws -

ready selling carbon osets on-line and the companys CEO

ckwdd s c rz cvs wr s

muc busss xrm s scc xrm.

Cms, r U.S. sr -u d, s s r-

.48 T CEO Cms s rsd cd cduc

r c rz xrms d cv wys

r scc, busss d crb mrk cmmus

45. Rachel Petkewich, O-Balance Ocean: Acidication rom absorbing atmospheric CO2 is changing t he oceans chemistry, Chemical & Engineering News, Volume 87, Number 8, February 23, 2009, pp. 56-58.

46. David Herring, What are phytoplankton? NASA Ea rth Observatory, available online: http://Earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Phytoplankton/

47. Sallie W.Chisholm, Paul G. Falkowski, John J. Cullen, Dis-crediting Ocean Fertilization, Science, Vol. 294, 12 October 2001, pp. 309-310.

48. www.climos.com


26/44


to collaborate.49 Te Ocean Nourishment Corporation,50 an

Ausr cmy ru by I S.F. Js w s

University o Sydney had plans to dump urea (nitrogen) into

Suu S bu ws sd by F vrm

2007, aer over 500 civil society organizations campaigned

against the plan. Te science o ocean ertilization is increas-

y dscrdd, w xrm rcv v

rvws rm vry rm Ry Scy Nw

Scs, m Ir-Gvrm P

Cm C.51

Te 191 governments attending the Convention on

Biological Diversity adopted a de acto moratorium on

c rz My 2008. T Ld Cv

and Protocol on ocean dumping has also addressed the

ssu, d r ry sbs w d m

scc xrm.

Whats wrong with ocean ertilization?Phytoplankton are the oundation o the marine ood chain.

Ir my w smu rw bms bu s

cur d m y sc mu

crb s dubu bs.52 T s sd--

cs s : xy d (x) d s; ds-

ru mr csysms, rcury d c;

a strong likelihood o increased releases o other GHGs such

s rus xd d m s w s ss suc s DMS

rm cuds r wr; xcc

mcs suc s ds cs ur rz-

tion; potential worsening o the problem o ocean acidica-

tion. Ocean ertilization could also have devastating im-

cs vds w dd y

mr sysms, ms by sr k.

49. See Margaret Leinen, Building relationships between science and business in ocean iron ertilization, July 2008 available at http://www.climos.com/publication.php

50. www.oceannourishment.com

51. Catherine Brahic, Hungry Shrimp Eat Science Experiment, New Scientist, 25 March 2009, available at http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16842-hungry-shrimp-eat-climate-change-experiment.html

and Royal Society, Geoengineering the climate: science, governance and uncertainty, op. cit.

52. Sallie W.Chisholm, Paul G. Falkowski, John J. Cullen, Dis-crediting Ocean Fertilization, Science, op. cit

Box 5: Ocean Fertilization The Planktos Story

Planktos, Inc. was a U.S. start-up company that intended to sow the oceans with iron in order to create plankton

blooms that would theoretically sequester CO2. By early 2007 Planktos was already selling carbon osets on its

web site, claiming its initial ocean ertilization test, conducted o the coast o Hawaii rom the private yacht o

singer Neil Young, were taking carbon out o the atmosphere. In May 2007, Planktos announced plans to set sail

rom Florida to dump tens o thousands o pounds o tiny iron particles over 10,000 square kilometers o inter-

national waters near the Galapagos Islands, a location chosen, among other reasons, because no government

permit or oversight would be required. In eorts to stop Planktos, civil society groups iled a ormal request with

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to investigate Planktoss activities and to regulate them under the

U.S. Ocean Dumping Act. In addition, public interest organizations asked the Securities Exchange Commission to

investigate Planktoss misleading statements to potential investors regarding the legality and purported envi-

ronmental beneits o their actions. Hit with negative publicity, Planktos announced in February 2008 it was in-

deinitely postponing its plans because o a highly eective disinormation campaign waged by anti-oset

crusaders. In April 2008, Planktos announced bankruptcy, sold its vessel and dismissed all employees. It deci-

ded to abandon any uture ocean ertilization eorts due to serious diiculty raising capital as a result o

widespread opposition.


27/44


Case Study 2:Artifcial Volcanoes Sulates in the Stratosphere:

The theory

Ts r cqu s udr cry

sr rd mm (SRM) d ms rduc

amount o sunlight entering the Earths atmosphere by

u y, rcv rcs srsr. T

1991 eruption o Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines spewed

twenty million tonnes o sulur dioxide into the stratosphere

d r cd 0.4 0.5C. Au d

rc vcs ws rs rsd 1977,53 c-

c s udr rm rc yrs.54 Scss

sm 2% rduc su cud

temperature-rise resulting rom o a doubling o atmos-

rc CO2. Advcs vs xcu s cqu

ry, ms ky vr Arcc, rdr s

disappearance o, or even to replenish, ice. Te particles

would be blasted by jets, re hoses, rockets or chimneys.P B, r xcc, s cqu s rmd s

mrcy msur wud br rsus qucky d

b xsv.

Whos involved?

Blasting particles into the atmosphere is getting more atten-

tion than any other geoengineering technology. Te U.S.

Deense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has

looked at possible methods or distributing the particles and

NASA has researched the impacts o aerosols on climate

c.55 T Nvm Gru, w Cr-bsd u

with a mission to present clear scientic optionswithout

advocacy56 issued their rst report on climate engineering57

Auus 2009, wc cusd rc vcc ru-

s. Sv K, w Udr Scrry r Scc

the U.S. Department o Energy, was a lead author. Tis study

rss d r rsrc, dvm d dy-

m.

Whats wrong with artifcial volcanoes?

Slowing down or stopping the rate o warming via solar

radiation management does nothing to change the levels o

CO2 in the atmosphere, so symptoms are addressed but not

causes. Even advocates admit that stratospheric sulates

v my ukw mcs, bu r s rsrc rdy

sus:

Terewillbedamagetotheozoneassulfateparticlesin

srsr rvd dd surcs r

crd ss suc s CFCs d HFCs rc.

Teabilitytotargetparticlesinthespecicareaswhere

su ds b rducd (.., Arcc r Grd)

s y scuv d s ky rcs wud

b dusd swr.

Itislikelythatprecipitationlevelswillbedecreasedinsm rs. Lr vcc msss su

rcs v s b ccmd by d

mss d xdd dru rc uds.

Preliminarymodelingsuggestsarapidriseintempera-

ur rrmm wr b srd d

sd. Suc rd rs wud b mr drus

Er rdu rs.

Reducedsunlightcouldunderminetheamountof

drc sr ry vb d dsurb ur

rcsss suc s syss by r

wv cm su.

Whatgoesupstill(usually)comesdown.Tetonnes

rcs wud d b rury bsd

srsr w d r wy bck

Er . A ssus rd vrm

d sy sscd w rcu u,

cud v mucurd rcs, rm

rv r u scms.

Geoengineeringthestratospheremakesiteasierfor

dusry cu s w msrc u.

53. Budyko, M. I., Climatic Changes, (Translation o Izmeniia Klimata, Leningrad: Gidrometeoizdat, 1974), Washington, D.C., American Geophysical Union, 1977.54. Crutzen, P.J., Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulur injections: A contribution to resolve a policy dilemma? Climatic Change 77, 2006, pp. 211-219. Matthews, H. D. and K. Caldeira, Transient clima te-carbon o planetary

geoengineering, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. vol. 104, no. 24, June 12, 2007, pp. 9949-9954 and Wrigley, T.M.L., A Combined mitigation/geoengineering approach to climate stabilization, Science, Vol. 314. no. 5798, 2006, pp. 452-454.

55. See Eli Kintisch, DARPA to Explore Geoengineering, Science Insider blog, March 14, 2009, available online at http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/03/exclusive-milit.html.

56. The Novim Groups mission at http://www.novim.org

57. Jason J. Blackstock, David S. Battisti, Ken Caldeira, Dougla s M. Eardley, Jonathan I. Katz, David W. Keith, Aris tides A. N. Patrinos, Daniel P. Schrag, Robert H. Socolow and Steven E. Koonin, Climate Engineering Responses to

Climate Emergencies, 29 July 2009, available online at http://www.novim.org/attachments/037_Novim%20Report%20Final%2007.28.09.pd


28/44


Case Study 3: Cloud Whitening Albedo Enhancement Below the Stratosphere

The theory

T ry bd cud w s dcvy sm:

mdy cms cuds by jc m w

seawater in order to make them whiter. Injection o salt

water theoretically increases the clouds condensation nu-

c, mk m smr d mr rcv.58 U 25%

o the worlds oceans are covered with thin low-lying strato-

cumulus clouds (below 2400 meters). Cloud whitening is

another solar radiation management technique and, like

simulating volcanic eruptions; the technique may reduce

the temperature o the atmosphere and the oceans, but

wud rduc vs rus ss. I s md

s umd vsss wud sry ms crd

rm drw swr cuds bv.

Whos involved?Te most prominent scientists advocating or cloud whiten-

ing are John Latham rom the National Center or

Atmospheric Research at the University o Colorado (USA)

and Stephen Salter rom the University o Edinburgh (UK).

Based on very articial modeling techniques that assume

perect cloud condensation nuclei,59 Phil Rasch o the

Pacic Northwest National Laboratory argues that seeding

cuds bv qurr wrds cs (!)

could oset warming by 3 watts per square metre, or, as

Latham and Salter hypothesize, subject to resolution o

specic problems, cloud whitening could hold the Earths

mrur cs s msrc CO2 ccr-

cus rs s wc curr vu.60

Ors v csd s msc ccus, w-

vr.61

Whats wrong with cloud whitening?

As rcy d by Amrc Mrc Scy

in its dra statement on geoengineering, proposals that

reduce the sunlight reaching the Earth would not only cool

mrur, bu cud s c b crcu

with potentially serious consequences such as changing

storm tracks and precipitation patterns throughout the

world.62 Altering the composition o the clouds over a quar-

ter to a hal o the Earths surace will aect whether pattern

d cud dsru mr csysms, cud brd d

. T cqu s s ry rsbudry

d sud rqur r rm. Fr xm,

mds sw ms cv rs r

wud b cs Cr d Pru bu s my

adversely eect coastal rainall and hence agriculture.

Although there have been well-ounded rumours regardingplans to experiment with this technology in the Faroes

Isds, cd bw Nrw S d Nr

Ac, s v b crmd d ubc qurs

rm EC Gru v rvdd crc.63

58. Panel on Policy Implications o Greenhouse Warming, National Academy o Sciences, National Academy o Engineering, Institute o Medicine, Policy Implications o Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the

Science Base The National Academies Press, 1992.

59. Philip Rasch, C-C Chen, John Latham, Global Temperature Stabilisation via Cloud Albedo Enhancement, Submission to the National Academies, available on the internet at http://americasclimatechoices.org/Geoengine-

ering_Input/GeoInputHome.html

60. See John Latham et al., Global Temperature Stabilization via controlled albedo enhancement o low-level Maritime Clouds, Philosophical Transactions o the Royal Society, 366, 2008, pp. 3969-3987.61. T. M. Lenton and N.E. Vaughan, The radiative orcing potential o dierent climate engineering options, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Dicissions, 9, 1-50, 2009, p. 18-19.

62. Geoengineering the Climate System: A Policy Statement o the American Meteorological Society, adopted by the AMS Council on 20 July 2009, available online at http://www.ametsoc.org/POLICY/2009geoengineeringclimat

e_amsstatement.html

63. http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/browse_thread/thread/2b6e7db90155e4

64. Drake Bennett, Dont like the weather? Change it, The Boston Globe, July 3, 2005, online at http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/07/03/dont_like_the_weather_change_it/ (accessed 15 October 2009)

The political and ethical dimensions o climate

modifcation are huge. In a 2005 interview in The

Boston Globe, Harvards Director o the Laboratory

or Geochemical Oceanography, Daniel Schrag asked,

Suppose we could control hurricanes, but stopping

one requires an incredibly hot day in Arica thatwould burn up all the crops.64Schrag went on, Lets

say you have a mirror in space. Think o two summers

ago when we were having this awul cold summer

and Europe was having this awul heat wave. Who

gets to adjust the mirror?


29/44


Geoengineering and Intellectual Property Claims

As i restructuring the climate isnt controversial enough, a

du rs r rvz ms d s

by cm rs vr r cqus.

Te politics o patents has always been a divisive issue when

surcs dr r r. T UNFCCC s

xc.

In the UNFCCC, governments rom the global South

ry dvc cd mcsms r cy

transer o useul technologies, including signicant nanc-

rm dvd curs, ru xs -

lectual property regimes are a barrier to accessing the tech-

nologies necessary to mitigate and adapt to climate change.

Te North advocates and gets strong protection o intel-

lectual property rights, arguing that high prots derived

rm IP drvs v d, vuy, rsr c-

s. T Nr s s mr rcy ssd -abling environments, a euphemism or corporate-riendly

policies at the national level (e.g., liberalized oreign invest-

m d sr dmsc IP rms) s w s sy v-

rm ccss r r crrs.

W rrd cm-rd cs, rsrc

dus cs by wy wy-yr m-

y s cry currducv b ur c-

.65 W IP s sr rr bs s r

holders to levy lucrative licensing and transer ees or to

press or a more avourable enabling environment. As with

r -c dusrs, rs b md rm -

censing patented geoengineering technologies becomes a

driver or governments to support geoengineering develop-

m, rsrc d dus rrdss cs, sy

r fccy.

As r cqus mv wrd cu dy-

m, xsc s d by dvdus d r-

vate companies could mean that decisions over the climate-

commons will be eectively handed over to the private

scr. Idd rs r rdy cm r

patents give them extended commercial rights over the com-

ms wc y r. I svr r-

ing patents granted to Proessor Ian S.F. Jones, ounder and

CEO Oc Nursm Crr, cm

his ocean nourishment method o dumping urea into

swr w rc s s ccmd by cm

ownership over any sh subsequently harvested rom a urea-

ertilized patch o ocean!66 Jones has reiterated this legal

cm crrsdc w EC Gru.67

Some geoengineering patents also attempt to appropriate

d rvz dus d rd kwd, msclearly demonstrable in the area o biochar. Te technique

o burying charcoal in soil was widely practiced by com-

munities throughout the Amazonian Basin beore the turn

rs mum, wr ws kw s rr Pr.

Ts cy s w subjc svr s. (S

b bw.)

As w r cy vrs ( swr, b-

cy, rbcs), sm rs r csdr

orgoing their intellectual property claims in order to speed

u dvm cy. CQusr, -

r rm UK w vsms rm S O, s

developing a technique to add lime to oceans. Te company

s s-dscrbd surc r cmy

d dcrs w sk y s cy

that results.68 Te table below provides a sampling o geoen-

r cs d ssud s.

65. In a recent discussion paper, researchers rom ve Asian research institutes, all rom countries that comply with the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects o Intellectual Property (TRIPS) India, China, Indonesia, Malaysia andThailand concluded that intellectual property has directly and indirectly hindered technology transer o climate technologies, even in light o the legal mandate or technology transer as part o the UNFCCC and the Kyoto

Protocol. TERI, Emerging Asia contribution on issues o technology or Copenhagen, New Delhi: The Energy and Resources Institute, 2009.

66. Claim 15 o patent application WO2008131485A1, Method For Attracting and Concentrating Fish, reads, A sh harvested using the method o claim 13 or 14.

67. In an email to ETC Group, dated 1 November 2007, Jones wrote, The Ocean Nourishment Foundation owns the rights to marine protein generated by the patented processes o Ocean Nourishment.

68. Cquestrate web page on open source approach: http://www.cquestrate.com/open-source (accessed 15 Oct 2009).


30/44


Table 2: A Sampling o Geoengineering Patents

Publication datePatent # or Application # Inventor/AssigneeTitle/Explanation

US20090173386A1 Bowers, Jerey A.; Caldeira,Kenneth G.; Chan, Alistair K.;Gates, III, William H. (yes, a.k.a.Bill Gates); Hyde, Roderick A.;Ishikawa, Muriel Y.; Kare, Jordin T.;Latham, John; Myhrvold, NathanP.; Medina, Salter, Stephen H.;Tegreene, Clarence T.; Wattenburg,Williard H.; Wood, JR., Lowell L.Searete LLC

Water alteration struc-ture applications andmethods / Reers to us-ing an ocean vessel orwave induced down-welling pushing warmsurace waters to lowerdepths or hurricanesuppression, biologicalenhancement, recrea-tional area creation,etc.

July 9, 2008

US20090173386A1 Bowers, Jerey A.; Caldeira,Kenneth G.; Chan, Alistair K.;Gates, III, William H.; Hyde,Roderick A.; Ishikawa, Muriel Y.;Kare, Jordin T.;Latham, John;Myhrvold, Nathan P.; Salter,Stephen H.; Tegreene, Clarence T.;Wood, JR., Lowell L.Searete LLC

Water alteration struc-

ture movement methodand system / Reers tothe same invention asabove, but includes themanagement o morethan one vessel in asystem.

July 9, 2009

WO2009062097A1 Whaley, Dan; Leinen, Margaret;Whilden, Kevin;Climos

Ocean FertilizationProject Identifcationand Inventorying /Reers to methodsto identiy units ocarbon sequestered orstorage with additionalinormation associatedwith [ocean ertiliza-tion] projects.

May 14, 2009

WO2009062093A1 Whaley, Dan; Leinen, Margaret;Whilden, Kevin;Climos

Quantifcation and QualityGrading or Carbon Se-questered via Ocean Fer-tilization / Systems andmethods or accuratelyquantiying amounts ocarbon sequestered andthe minimum periods

o time beore whichthe sequestered carbonreturned to the atmos-phere as CO2.

May 14, 2009


31/44



WO2008131485A1 Jones, Ian S.F.Ocean Nourishment FoundationLimited, Australia

Method For Attractingand Concentrating Fish /Increasing the numbero phytoplankton in theocean by providing asource o nitrogen.

November 6,2008

WO2008131472A1 Jones, Ian S. F.; Rodgers, William;Wheen, Robert, John; Judd, Bruce,Joseph

Ocean Nourishment CorporationPty Limited, Australia

Carbon SequestrationUsing a Floating Vessel/Reers to ertilizingthe ocean with urea toincrease the number ophytoplankton.

November 6,2008

WO2008124883A1 Jones, Ian, Stanley, FergusonOcean Nourishment CorporationPty Limited, Australia

Method o Determiningthe Amount o CarbonDioxide Sequesteredinto the Ocean asa Result o OceanNourishment / Providesa ormula or calcu-lating the amount osequestered CO2 or thepurposes o producingtradable carbon credit.

October 23,2008

EP1608721A1 Meier, DietrichKlaubert, Hannes

Method and Device orthe Pyrolysis o Biomass /Describes a process orbiochar heating biomassand compressing it underpressure.

December 28,2005

WO2009061836A1 Lackner, Klaus, S.; Wright, Allen, B.

Global Research Technology, LLC

Removal o Carbon Dioxiderom Air / Removing CO2rom a gas stream bycontacting the stream witha substrate having cationson its surace, where CO2rom the stream becomesattached to the substrate by

reacting with anions, andreleasing CO2.

May 14, 2009


32/44



US20020009338A1 Blum, Ronald D.; Duston, DwightP.; Loeb, Jack

Inuencing weatherpatterns by way oaltering surace orsubsurace ocean watertemperatures / Reersto an ocean upwellingsystem capable obringing up deeper wa-ters to surace waters.

January 24,2002

US6056919 Michael MarkelsMethod o sequesteringcarbon dioxide / Reersto increasing phyto-plankton by applyingnutrients to the ocean,

specifcally, ertilizersin pulses.

May 2, 2002

US6200530 Michael MarkelsSequestering carbon di-oxide in open oceans tocounter global warm-ing / Reers to increas-ing phytoplankton byapplying nutrients tothe ocean, specifcally,ertilizers in pulsesand in a spiral pattern.

March 13, 2001

WO

retooling the planet? – climate chaos in the geoengineering age

Documents